Quote:
Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross
Seriously? So the team should be punished for not wanting to play 19 games in 31 days right after a small time of healing? That sounds dangerous to me. These players had the Brazil variant, known for possibly being more dangerous than some of the other hockey outbreaks. I mean, Hughes was bedridden and was being given an IV and we think it’s an okay idea for him to play that often? Coronavirus is a respiratory disease for Christ sakes, and we all know how taxing playing puck is. I think it’a ludicrous to punish the Canucks organization because their players are looking after their health before hockey. If the NHL forces them to play and one player begins to form chronic health damage, even after the season, the league should be seen as responsible.
If one player is responsible for spreading it, it makes no sense then to punish the whole team.
|
If players are medically cleared they should play. I hear this talk of injury and being safe and if players are really worried about being injured they should retire as that's part of the game. A player is at risk of injury the moment they step on the ice in any game whether it be exhibition, regular season, or playoffs. That's part of professional sports and the players are highly compensated with their salaries. To me it all comes down to the bottom line is that if they are cleared to play they should do their job.